Skip to comments.
German Sub Sank the Titanic!
National Examiner (tabloid)
| Aug. 27, 2002
| Dr. Franklin Ruehl, PhD.
Posted on 08/21/2002 10:12:24 PM PDT by vikingchick
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121 next last
To: vikingchick
HA!! Found the bug. My AIX compiler's optimization was corrupting a variable length array.
Free to Freep! Free to Freep! Thank G-d, Allmighty, I'm Free to Freep.
(at least until the customer release is done. Now, what is this crap about torpedos...)
To: Jimer
To be a little bit more precise ...
In April 1912, when the Titanic sank, the best of the pre-WWI German U-boats were the U-13 type. They had a maximum operating range of about 4,000 miles. Although the first three U-13 type boats had been launched, the first two, U-14 and U-13, were not commissioned until April 24th and 25th, 1913 (respectively). Since their commissioning ceremonies were well attended, they could not have deployed to the north Atlanctic and returned in time.
That means that the U-9 type boats (U-9 through U-12) would have been the best available. The problem is, these small boats (170 feet in length and 23 feet high when surfaced) only had a 3,300 mile maximum operating radius.
The distance from Germany to Newfoundland, via the English Channel is about 3,000 miles. This means, unless the U-boat was on a one-way mission, or was otherwise logistically supported, no German U-boats of that vintage could have possibly carried out the mission. Furthermore, because of the U-boats low top surface speed (8 knots), and even lower submerged speed (1-2 knots), it would have nearly impossible for the submarine to know where the very fast Titanic would have been at any time in its voyage.
Since the German report no U-boats lost at that time, the one way mission is not plausible. I suppose the author of the article could imagine a secret German Arctic submarine base, or claim they had developed at sea refueling from a German tanker assigned to accompany the mission. These are just as plausible as the orignal post.
To: vikingchick
Shocking New Theory spin!
To: gcruse
Great picture. Thanks.
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Ah, c'mon AP. You know it seems at least remotely possible that the Germans did it; out of jealousy if not just sheer SPITE. :)
To: capitan_refugio
... U-14 and U-13, were not commissioned until April 24th and 25th, 1913 (respectively).I think you meant 1912 instead of 1913, but, yes, that would be after the sinking. Maybe the subs were refuled at sea, as you mentioned, if that was done in those days.
46
posted on
08/22/2002 12:25:36 AM PDT
by
Consort
To: Jimer
You are correct, "1913" was a typo on my part. I meant 1912.
To: KayEyeDoubleDee
Now, what is this crap about torpedos...)OK, I'll catch you up. The Germans probably scuttled the Titanic and got away with it for all these years. Why don't they just 'fess up and stop the charade? ;)
To: Jimer
About the only factual statement concerning pre-WWI U-boats was that they did deploy to the North Atlantic in 1912. The only problem is, there is no record they deployed to the north-WEST Atlantic. The North Sea is, afterall, part of the north Atlantic; as is the English Channel; as is the Norwegian Sea; as is the Faroes Gap; et cetera. The German U-boats of the era, as were almost all submarines built then, basically for coastal defense. This would change in a few short years. But in 1912, the idea of an ocean-going submarine was only found in Jules Verne novels.
To: AriOxman
"Subprofiler images of the Titanic's hull have now proven that the damage she sustained wasn't as bad as we first thought. So something else must have been responsible for her loss that night. Sorry, torpedoes blow big holes in ships, the lack of damage is indicative of sprung plates leaking, exactly the kind of damage that collisions do and explosives don't do. The evidence they cite disproves their own theory.
To: capitan_refugio
|
But in 1912, the idea of an ocean-going submarine was only found in Jules Verne novels. I think so, as well. But it's fun to join a new conspiracy theory for a little while. |
51
posted on
08/22/2002 12:55:34 AM PDT
by
Consort
To: Bobby777
The German sub included a Sears mini-refrigerator Hilarious!
52
posted on
08/22/2002 1:07:26 AM PDT
by
tictoc
To: SAJ
I just wanted an excuse to post spacemoose on FR.
53
posted on
08/22/2002 5:54:32 AM PDT
by
Bogey78O
To: vikingchick; Vic3O3
Bump for a fun read...
Don't these people have anything better to do with their time.
Semper Fi
54
posted on
08/22/2002 6:17:47 AM PDT
by
dd5339
To: vikingchick
Haven't read thru all the responses so someone may have already covered this point ... German U-boats didn't have the range necessary in 1912 to have sunk the Titanic where she went down ... nothing more has to be said about this bogus nonsense story.
55
posted on
08/22/2002 6:24:38 AM PDT
by
BluH2o
To: vikingchick
Thanks for sharing....
Cheers, CC :-p
To: vikingchick
Notify the TWA 800 crowd -- they'll assume this is true and start ranting immediately.
To: vikingchick
Nonsense. I distinctly remember seeing Leonardo and Kate skipping over the chunks of iceberg laying on the deck.
To: Jimer
"
I think so, as well. But it's fun to join a new conspiracy theory for a little while.It is fun. It's down right hilarious when some people start to believe it. I loved it when the two old guys finally admitted making the crop circles. That was great.
To: vikingchick
I heard something about this as well, except I read that the Titanic was actually hit by a 688 boat, which launched a Tomahawk from 450 miles out. I believe it was the USS Dallas that lauched the missile. The Dallas at the time was chasing a new type Russian sub. The light the captian of the Californian saw was a Coast Guard HH-60 dropping of rescue swimmers to help the survivors.
The Trilateral Commission and the Illuminati made sure the survivors never told the real story.
60
posted on
08/22/2002 7:31:57 AM PDT
by
Duke809
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson